Sound Designer

[ProdInfo]

From the MLCD 2.1 product announcement:

quote:

---

MasterList CD v2.1 now supports optional use of any PCI-based Digidesign hardware system for higher quality output monitoring and digital transfer to DAT when using this host-based software, including Pro Tools III-PCI and Pro Tools Project-PCI.

---

-BGP-

[DigiTechSupt]

Will,

You are obviously very detailed oriented, I don't agree with you that monitoring the output is going to affect the outcome of your CD that much but, that's the beauty of it, use it as you choose.

In that case, there are a couple of options you have to take advantage of the best of both Masterlist CD version worlds.

1) Build your masterlist including crossfades in Pro Tools. Bounce it to disk and import the entire file(s) into Masterlist CD as one item and simply create the track indexes manually in Masterlist CD. Write the disk in "powermix" mode for the increased write speed capabilities.

2) Build your masterlist while monitoring through the digi hardware and when you are ready to write a disk switch over to powermac mode to get the increased write speeds.

With these options, your spacing and crossfades "decisions" can be made while monitoring via the Digi hardware and the disc can be written in "powermix" mode for speed.

Thanks,

Jon Connolly

[Bob Oak]

Dear more1,

You should change your sign on name to 'moron'! And the tech's name is Jon, not Jim. You and Will are making a huge deal out of nothing. Audio mastering should be done in Pro Tools or Sound Designer, and not in Masterlist. If you did your job right in the audio applications, then all you are worrying about in MLCD is PQ Subcodes and song order. The quality of the converters make absolutely NO difference in the quality of the audio 'burned' into the CD.

Which gets us back to Mark's original post. He says that you SHOULD have an apllication in which you do both the 'audio mastering' and the 'PQ Subcode pre-mastering'. In THAT case, if such an application existed, you'd want to monitor through the best converters possible at all times.

Mark, I believe the reason MLCD is the way it is, is because they prefer to have a dedicated application to just do PQ Subcode editing, and does it well. If they start adding too many audio features into it, then they have to duplicate their work, having engineers write the same features into Pro Tools and MLCD. It's almost like having competing products. The hard thing about that is that it is hard to advertize what MLCD is actually good at. Namely, CDRs burned with MLCD --if all recommended precedures are followed (such as recommended media, write speeds, etc.)-- have lower error rates that CDRs burned with most other apps. So, most of the apps that have a thousand features, have color shows, and burn at 20x speeds etc, look really cool, but have high error rates when sent in to the replication plant. Your idea is still not a bad one, though.

[Rudy Trubitt]

I agree with Mark's original post-MLCD needs to be better integrated to the audio editing environment. Let's say I'm using a SD2 playlist to tailor a track's fade out. The client decides that they want another bar or two before we reach silence. To do so, I must re-open the sound file in SD2, open the playlist, select the fade out option, change the fade duration (and perhaps curve shape). Not to mention that it's awkward to actually hear the new fade out with any pre-roll. Now we must close the file and then return to MLCD and update the item. At this point, we can hear the edited fade, with some preroll, the gap and then the start of the next track. I think Mark's point is right on-look at a screen shot of Sound Forge's CD Architect and see if that doesn't look like a more attractive way to work.

I am intrigued by Bob's comment that "CDRs burned with MLCD have lower error rates that CDRs burned with most other apps." Could you cite the basis for this?

Rudy

[Mark Wheaton]

I will say, despite info from knowledgable people that MLCD has fewer error rates, I have successfully mastered two projects in JAM with no problems at the pressing plant. However, this doesn't mean that MLCD isn't better. However, quite often I am faced with having to master demo/one-off CDs for clients that don't care if it is the ultimate as long as it works, in these situations, Jam is more convenient, however I still would prefer MLCD. My effort here isn't to promote JAM or Toast but to prod Digidesign into taking this important product (DSII/MLCD) to the next level. I believe that Mastering is rapidly moving out of the rarified world of specialists and is becoming an integrated part of studio activity. I usuually make CD s for clients in lieu of Cassettes since it gives them a better idea, and since time is at a premium, I'd like to do the process as efficiently as possible.

[Rudy Trubitt]

Again I find myself in general agreement with Mark. In two particular cases, MLCD will make better-sounding audio, first, by dithering during crossfades and gain changes, where Jam does not, and second, the current version of Jam suffers from just HORRIBLE-sounding rollover distortion if you use the level change to boost a file into clipping. MLCD just clips when boosted to excess.

However, most of my mastering projects don't require crossfades, and I've done the level changes and processing elsewhere. In these cases, Jam is much more convinient to use.

I too have shipped masters for replication using both products, and have not had any discs rejected for uncorrectable errors. I'm still waiting for someone to provide any data to support that one program or the other has any claim as to writing "better" discs (those with fewer errors). I have written a number of articles on the subject of CDR for both audio and multitmedia applications, and have had a number of conversations with the folks who work on these problems for a living. What I have gleened from them is that there are many, many variables when it comes to CDR quality. I suspect a statistically significant study would be required to reach a conclusion on such a point, I wonder if such a study has been undertaken, or if annecdotal information is being used instead.

Rudy